There’s a lot that I can say on the topic of various cities and their public transportation systems. I have a lot of opinions on the subject. However, research isn’t just going around trying to prove my own points–that much was made clear to me after discussion with my faculty mentor Professor Esser and during class today with Dr. Boesenecker. Humor me, if you will, because I would like to dive further into what transpired in my class session earlier.
For context, today’s class was all about starting a working definition of what the terms “science” and “research” truly mean to our field. Now to be completely honest, I was trying my best to pay attention, but my mind started to wander about an hour in. I believe it was around the time the discussion started shifting to whether or not biases were a detriment to research or a central facet that we can not avoid. I personally think that I can do with a little less bias, and I was trying to figure out how a research question would look with respect to my overall interest of public transport in cities.
Then, in a random moment of inspiration, I got a starting point for my question: What causes cities to choose to invest in a public transport system or a more complex set of highways? Now I realize these probably aren’t the only two options, and there may seem like there are some simple answers, namely cost or ability to build in and around the city. However, I think that there’s something more to this question, and I want to collect the necessary data to come to a conclusion about this issue.
For example, why do Los Angeles, New York City, and the San Francisco Bay Area all have differing amounts of public transport and highways? They’re all fairly similar in population size and all three areas have the capability to build in and around their urban areas. So what gives? Why does New York City–recent issues aside–have one of the most highly regarded public transport systems in the world, while the Bay Area is left with a clashing system of competing regional trains and Los Angeles has a system that is barely ever ridden by its citizens?
Hopefully we’ll find out.
You’re off to a good start here, Nathan, and I’m glad to read that you’ve also met with your mentor to discuss your ideas. An important next step would be to start to explore what scholars are saying about this broad topic area, and more specific puzzles or debates within it, to point you towards those deeper research puzzles that you could pursue in 206 and 306. With some more digging — and this is an ongoing process — we’re going to work towards some “why…?” or “what explains…?” type questions that get us towards the idea of *understanding* as discussed by Booth et al. (p. 23) and the idea of research as explanation covered by Abbott. Keep thinking about what the *puzzle* is that underlies any particular question (the thing that makes us go “hmmm….I wonder why that is/was that way…”).
Keep up the reading and research — I’m very interested to see how the project develops in the next few weeks!
As someone who has been obsessed with metro systems since I was a young child, I am especially excited to see what direction your research will take. I don’t know if this is something that you will consider or research in your project, but to me, at least, it would be important and interesting to see how the age of a city affects its public transportation system and the choices made regarding the public transportation system, especially when comparing public transportation systems in the United States with those in other countries. Regardless of what direction your research takes, I am excited to see what discoveries you will make.